corrupting our democracy, relying on elections to solve the problem is insufficient: it makes no sense to wait for the ballot box when a President stands accused of interfering with elections and is poised to do so again. Numerous Framers spoke directly to this point at the Constitutional Convention. Impeachment is the remedy for a President who will do anything, legal or not, to remain in office. Allowing the President a free pass is thus the wrong move when he is caught trying to corrupt elections in the final year of his first four-year term—just as he prepares to face the voters.
Holding the President accountable for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" not only upholds democracy, but also vindicates the separation of powers. Representative Robert Kastenmeier explained this well in 1974: "The power of impeachment is not intended to obstruct or weaken the office of the Presidency. It is intended as a final remedy against executive excess … [a]nd it is the obligation of the Congress to defend a democratic society against a Chief Executive who might be corrupt." [1]The impeachment power thus restores balance and order when Presidential misconduct threatens constitutional governance.
VII.Conclusion
As Madison recognized, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it control itself." James Madison, Federalist No. 51 at 356.Impeachment is the House's last and most extraordinary resort when faced with a President who threatens our constitutional system. It is a terrible power, but only "because it was forged to counter a terrible power: the despot who deems himself to be above the law."[2] The consideration of articles of impeachment is always a sad and solemn undertaking. In the end, it is the House—speaking for the Nation as a whole—that must decide whether the President's conduct rises to the level of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" warranting impeachment.
76
